THE TIMES

Women Go Into Battle

Both sexes have the right to defend their nation, argues John Nichol.

It was reported on the front
page of The Times this week that Mister Blair intends to ask the public if they
approve of women in combat roles. It is a little late for that; the first female
aircrew joined Royal Air Force combat squadrons a number of years ago to fly its
Tornadoes and Jaguars.

And not just the RAF; the Army
has females undercover with 14 Intelligence Company in Northern Ireland, their
incredibly dangerous task is to conduct covert surveillance operations against
known IRA "players". Many of the UK's little known prisoner of war
interrogation units are staffed with female officers, friends who have had the
misfortune of experiencing the woman's touch on these 'Conduct After Capture'
courses testify that the women are far more efficient interrogators than the
men.

Of course it's not just in
recent years that we have seen an upsurge in military 'girl power'. From the
days of Queen Bodecea through to Odette Churchill, who served with the World War
2's Special Operations Executive in occupied France, women have made daunting
fighters. The film image of pretty agents with perfectly manicured nails is
destroyed when one hears that the faces were beaten beyond recognition and the
nails pulled out with pliers by Hitler's SS thugs. But it is still the male
perspective that dominates. As Sarah Ford, from Northern Ireland's undercover
unit, said of her male comrades, "I was a huge shock to these lads. They
thought they were James Bond and didn't want a big soft girly messing up their
bravado and antics. But they soon realised I could kick and fight like the next
man."

But should they be allowed to
fight and why should we bother to ask the public's opinion now? Could it be that
the New Labour would prefer to abdicate it's decision making responsibilities so
that when things go wrong they can hold up their collective new hands and say
"Sorry, not my decision, Guv."

Needless to say the debate will
have the feminists burning their bergens and ranting for equal rights whilst
some crusty old generals will be wheeled out of hibernation to dribble about the
effect on regimental traditions. But what about those who really matter, the
females who want to fight and the men who will serve alongside them.

Steve and Sue are two RAF
fighter pilots who also happen to be partners (names changed to protect the
innocent). Steve supported his girlfriend 100%; "Sue's a bloody good pilot
and I'd go to war with her any day." Which is all very well, but what if
the worse happened? "It could happen at any time to me or to her, that's
what the job is about. You accept that or get out."

One of the arguments most used
against female troops is the question of a woman's physical strength and mental
ability to do the job. Sue was adamant that, as long as selection standards were
not changed females could compete on an equal level with their male
counterparts.

I have seen many men who were
neither physically nor mentally up to the task of coping with military life;
they were allowed to bumble on regardless. But the question of selection and
training is much more interesting and herein lies part of the problem. A few
years ago, the RAF was forced into allowing women to train to be aircrew and in
the ill-judged rush to appear politically correct training standards were
allowed to fall. A flying instructor from that time was told to ensure that his
female students passed the course regardless of ability, if he was not willing
to do this the hierarchy would find someone who was. This ludicrous position
helps neither the military nor the cause of the many female candidates who could
really make the grade. Indeed it is a source of great offence to most females in
the armed forces that some of their compatriots let the side down.

So how will the Government seek
approval for this new venture? An internal MoD document is reported to say that
using the Central Office of Information's weekly survey will be "the
quickest and cheapest method" to test the water; "less likely to
attract public attention." Despite efforts to avoid the issue there will be
one thing guaranteed to attract public attention: our first female prisoner of
war.

In the military's last three
major conflicts, the Falklands, Bosnia and the Gulf, we have always had British
POWs; one can presume that during the next conflict - and there will be one -
things will not be that much different. How will the media and the public react
to the spectacle of a British woman being beaten and paraded on TV by her
foreign captors? Dr Reid, The Armed Forces Minister, is said to be privately
worried about the affect female POWs might have on morale. And so he should be;
but is there a difference between male and female POWs?

I would have to say yes. As a
POW in Iraq I regularly saw other male prisoners being beaten and tortured; the
sight and sound was degrading, horrific and something that will never leave me,
but I did not try to intervene because it would have been a pointless exercise.

However there was a female who
had been captured; Major Rhonda Cornum was an American Army doctor who had been
shot down in a Blackhawk helicopter whilst on a search and rescue mission. Both
her arms had been broken in the crash and despite the most incredible pain the
Iraqis tried to strip and sexually molest her on a number of occasions. At one
point a young American soldier tried to prevent this and was beaten to a pulp
for his efforts. She did not ask for assistance but he felt he was duty bound to
protect her. Was he wrong? What would the armchair warriors who appear on our
nightly news programmes and comment from the comfort of a studio have said if he
had left her to her fate? Would I have reacted differently if it had been my
female crewmate being raped? I would like to think I would have had the courage
to do something, however fruitless; thank God I did not have to find out. But is
it a man's duty to protect?

A serving frontline commander
offered his views regarding females in battle, he was adamant that they would be
as effective as men. I'm sure he's right. I then put the possibility of one of
his female officers being captured and raped, or worse still being repatriated
pregnant or bearing the enemy's children. The very notion repulsed him; he
admitted the thought had never crossed his mind. Regardless of Government
studies females are already on the front line; if we are to allow them into
combat then it's about time we aired such thoughts, however repugnant and
harrowing.

I recently spoke to a
19-year-old woman who was learning to fly; her one ambition in life is to become
a fighter pilot. She looked at me in pity when I asked her if she had fears of
being captured and tortured, "exactly the same fears as you had I
imagine", she replied. "Why do you feel the need to worry about me?
It's the job I want to do and I'm capable of it, if I get captured it will be my
problem, not yours". This is the crux of the matter; female combatants
don't ask for or require any special consideration, the problem is
male-generated and for males to overcome. The public can be consulted about it
until the cows come home but it is the men, especially those in the military,
who will have to deal with their fears and prejudice.

A female armed-forces journalist
recently argued with me that women are the untapped reserve that the military
desperately needs if it is to tackle manpower problems. I think she's right; as
we men come to terms with our deep seated prejudices, women will rightly be
allowed to fight for their country, and sooner rather than later. I am confident
that women will acquit themselves with honour. When that day comes, however, I
hope and pray that my worst nightmares never come true.